Posted on 08/04/2009 1:26:49 PM PDT by RobinMasters
You are going to need to provide some more detail if you want to debate this point. I read through the entire link and still don’t see your point. Barack Sr. was domiciled in Kenya. He came to the U.S. as a student with no intention of domiciling in Hawaii or Mass.
I don’t care to discuss it. I have been discussing for days and days and days and days.You can read the law. the link I posted discusses the law under the 1948 act as well.
It is a pretty good discussion and gives you basis to continue to research.
I know for sure domicile was important when it came to customary marriage for marriages before 1971 under a later law.Under that particular law Ann would have had a problem because she was domiciled in the US IF she had a customary marriage to Sr.
READ THE LAW.
Or don’t read it.
You do a disservice to many when you post inaccurate information and don’t look at research that doesn’t follow your agenda.
Yikes! I wasn’t excerpting I was merely drawing your attention to a piece of your own quote. Anyone following the thread could see that. I thought we where having an intellectual discussion not a pissing contest.
I even acknowledged that the opinion grants citizen and nbcs the same rights. What you are doing is dishonest because you are excerpting a small passage and ignoring the core holding of the opinion which is that the defendant was determined to be a plain vanilla citizen.
Your passage and opinion in general clearly makes a distinction between citizens and natural born citizens otherwise there would be no need for the two concepts. The court would have explicitly said the defendant was a nbc in their core holding if that is what they meant. But that is not what they meant as that was not the question put before the court. They ruled on what was asked and the question was whether the defendant was a citizen not a natural born citizen.
Btw, there are two separate quotes in that passage. The first is used to support the conjecture in the second where the distinction between the two citizen classes is made. You are asserting they are part of the same statement.
Then direct me to one of your vast expositions on the subject. I did read the law. From my reading you are mistaken. I’d be happy to change my opinion on the subject if someone could come forward with a concrete argument supporting it but every conversation seems to end with statements like “I am sure the law says it somewhere.” or “You are not reading it right.” or “Do your own homework.” Asking for Obama’s id at the door of the most powerful office on the planet is not unpatriotic, racist, stupid or whatever insult you are readying to hurl at me. This is a basic question that he has sworn to have answered correctly. If Obama has a shread of dignity and honor he will cooperate with authorities in resolving this matter regardless of the outcome. The President has his finger on the nuclear button. I am not going to just trust that someone smarter than me has done my thinking for me. So put up or shut up.
“for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
What part of “THAT ISSUE IS A NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT” are you having problems with?
You didn’t bother to refute anything I said previously. You just repeated what you said before and insulted me again. My problem with YOUR excerpt is that you are implying it says something that it doesn’t. Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
But that’s not what they said. By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.
It would appear you are more interested in having the last word than in having a real discussion.
I accidentally hit report abuse on your post. Didn’t mean to do it.
I am tired of talking about this subject. It has been going on for several weeks.
The information is there and gives you the ideas of what to look for in doing research.
The marriage was void.
It was not a legitimate birth.
Citizenship could not be conferred on US soil.
IT HAD TO BE A LEGITIMATE MARRIAGE AT TIME OF BIRTH..or there had to be a law that later turned it into a legitimate birth...such as the subsequent marriage provision.
That is reality. If you don’t believe it, I don’t care to spend any more time to educate you.
Do it yourself.
It takes less than 60 minutes ..not knowing ANYTHING but that the marriage was a bigamist marriage ...to find the UK law.
Wong Kim Ark was found to be a natural born citizen, despite being the child of two foreign nationals.
“that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’”
That issue (of a foreign national) is a natural born subject, and if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.
“Is as much a citizen” doesn't mean ‘a different type of citizen’ especially as it is immediately preceded by “that issue is a natural born subject”.
People who refuse to do even the most basic research but claim to know how the law operates in regards to obama ...just something I can’t understand.
For those that claim legitimacy doesn’t matter to the UK and doesn’t effect Obama’s citizenship if born in the US.....just read some of their law.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1976/cukpga_19760031_en_1
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
"His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, IS YET, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’”
If it implied that the defendant was indeed an nbc it would read
"His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, IS, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’ and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a NATURAL-BORN citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’”
It is clear that the Lord Coke's quote is used to draw a distinction between citizens and nbcs while equating of the rights of citizens and nbcs in the second quote from Binney. The second quote would be unnecessary and redundant if it said what you are implying it says.
Perhaps that is why you conveniently left it out.
On the contrary, I explained it along with the rest of the quote which you conveniently leave out in your comments. Plus, I discuss that clause in relationship to the rest of the opinion which you seem to be unwilling to discuss. You continue to parrot back the same objection hoping that saying it enough times will make it true. I am sorry you don’t understand but I have made my point. At this point, I am content to let others judge the veracity of your comments. Goodnight.
“that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’”
Repeating natural born is just redundant, and “is as much a citizen” in no way implies ‘a different type of citizen’ no matter how much you want it to.
Moreover the second part is a direct quote, while the first part is the judge writing the decisions legal judgment.
The judge writing the decision stated unequivocally that the child of a foreign national if born under the jurisdiction of the USA is a natural born subject; he then went on to quote Mr. Binney that the citizen would be as much a citizen as the child of US citizens.
It is your opinion that the judge writing this decision should have AMENDED the quote of Mr. Binney to add a redundant natural born, even though the previous part of the same sentence already stated “natural born”? Ludicrous.
Do you have proof that Barack Sr. was indeed married to his first wife in the eyes of the state? It could have been a tribal marriage without any legal standing. Accounts claim that Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann where clearly married. She divorced him (not annulled) in 1964 when she married Lolo Sotero. Barack Sr. did not contest the divorce. You can’t divorce someone who you weren’t married to in the first place. Clearly both the couple and the state recognized the marriage.
You are wrong...but I dont care. really I am tired of trying to educate people who want to mislead...
do whatever...
The part that says "subject," you dolt.
That would have been absolute anathema to our Founders, and it's telling that it rolls so trippingly off your tongue in this day and time. You go ahead and be a subject, ruled by a ruler if you like, but not in my country, a country of sovereign citizens.
But, just in case you really haven't noticed, we don't have subjects of any kind other than foreign, here in the United States. Why don't we have subjects? Because we do not have a sovereign king, queen or lord, to whom we must pledge our liege.
Liege is the root word for allegiance. Under a Constitutional Republic, sovreignty of necessity devolved upon the citizens themselves. Therefore, in order to have allegiance to the sovereign, which in this instance is literally the people as in "We, the people," one must be of the people. Being of the people is being of the sovereign and in allegiance to it.
Spend a little time with Vattel and Liebnitz, as our Founders clearly did. If you're being honest with yourself, you'll begin to see this matter with greater clarity, than you are at present.
Dolt yourself.
Previously they were quoting English law, whereby even the child of foreign nationals born under the authority of the crown were “natural born subjects”.
We prefer the term “citizen”, but the same principle of “natural born” applies.
Wong Kim Ark was found by the court to be natural born, despite having two foreign national parents.
Also the term “subjects” in reference to citizens of the United States was not “absolute anathema” to our Founders; if you were familiar with the writings of our founders and the writings of the time you would find it used often.
It is amazing to me that those so quick to claim to know the feelings and words of our Founders seem to be so abysmally ignorant of their actual words and writings.
Here in “the Writings of George Washington” page 287 we find....
“...and any future settlements which may be formed in their neighborhood by the subjects of the United States.”
“Such a measure would not only hold out great encouragement to the Inhabitants already on those lands, who will doubtless make very useful and valuable subjects of the United States” George Washington, Sentiments on a Peace Establishment, 2 May 1783
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.